24-003677 Valuation.pdf

Cecelia A Hess, Petitioner V City Of St Joseph, Respondent · 24-003677-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 

Cecelia A Hess, 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003677 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

 

City of St. Joseph, 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

 

 

Berrien County, Michigan 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

 

 

June 6, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

 

 

Cecelia Hess and Adam Wolf 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: 

 

Michele Bennett, Assessor 

 

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), and taxable 

value (TV), for the tax year at issue, are as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 11-76-5080-0015-00-1 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$280,000

$140,000

$140,000

2025

$308,000

$154,000

$144,340

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 

March BOR. The BOR declined to lower the assessment for the subject property. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on July 11, 2024, and Respondent filed its 

answer on October 9, 2024. 

 

The amount of the SEV or TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at 

issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the 

property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).

MTT Docket No. 24-003677 

Page 2 of 7 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. 

 

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the 

property.”3 

 

The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True 

cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market 

value.”6 

 

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal 

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one 

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of 

both in arriving at its determination.”8 

 

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears 

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 

 

2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 

 

MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or 

capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined 

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the 

lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property 

(i.e., property not previously assessed).10 

 

Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in 

writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled 

“findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise 

statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the 

evidence.”11 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or 

every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence 

contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by 

authority or reasoned opinion.”12 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of 

 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 

5 MCL 211.27(1). 

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

8 Id. at 356. 

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 

10 See MCL 211.34d. 

11 See also MCR 2.517(a). 

12 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003677 

Page 3 of 7 

 

evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering 

judgment. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 11-76-5080-0015-00-1 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$220,000

$110,000

$110,000

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 1 of the docket maintained in 

this case.13 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that the subject property is over assessed and should be valued at $220,000, the price 

Petitioner paid to purchase the property. 

 

At hearing, Petitioner, Cecelia Hess, testified that she purchased the subject property 

for $220,000 in November 2023. Ms. Hess testified that the home was livable, and 

there were no major problems. Upon inquiry by the Tribunal, Ms. Hess testified that the 

subject property was not listed for sale on the open market, and she learned the 

property was for sale from a relative. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year at issue: 

 

Parcel Number: 11-76-5080-0015-00-1 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$305,000

$152,500

$152,500

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 5 and 8 of the docket 

maintained in this case.14 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends 

that the subject property is properly assessed. 

 

13 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be 

accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case. 

14 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be 

accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.

MTT Docket No. 24-003677 

Page 4 of 7 

 

At hearing, Respondent’s assessor, Michele Bennett, testified that she contacted Ms. 

Hess to discuss the case and to request an inspection of the property, but ultimately Ms. 

Hess declined Ms. Bennett’s request to inspect the property. Upon inquiry by the 

Tribunal, Ms. Bennett admitted that the underlying data to support the 2024 economic 

condition factor (ECF) of 1.414, which is listed on the property record card, was missing 

from the evidence she filed with the Tribunal. Upon further inquiry by the Tribunal, Ms. 

Bennett testified that the subject market was increasing at a rate of 12% from 2024 to 

2025. 

 

After learning the subject property was not listed for sale on the open market and was 

not an arm’s length transaction, Ms. Bennett asked to discuss possibly settling the case, 

to which Ms. Hess agreed. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 

1. The subject property is located at 2800 South State Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 

in Berrien County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential. 

3. Petitioner purchased the subject property for $220,000 in November 2023. 

4. The property was not listed on the open market and was not an arm’s length 

transaction. 

5. Petitioner did not provide any valuation evidence. 

6. Respondent valued the property using the mass appraisal cost approach. 

7. Respondent’s ECF analysis was not supported with evidence. 

8. At hearing, the parties agreed to reduce the TCV of the subject property to 

$280,000 with an assessed value (AV) and TV of $140,000 for the 2024 tax year. 

For tax year 2025, the parties agreed to a TCV of $308,000 with an AV of 

$154,000, and TV of $144,340. 

9. The TV for tax year 2025 increased only by the inflation rate multiplier of 1.031.15 

10. The subject market was increasing from 2024 to 2025. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: 

 

A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.16 The 

Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial 

evidence.17 

 

 

15 See Bulletin-14-of-2024--Inflation-Rate-Multiplier-for-2025.pdf. 

16 MCL 205.735a(2). 

17 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v 

Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990).

MTT Docket No. 24-003677 

Page 5 of 7 

 

Further, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax [T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the 

most accurate valuation under the circumstances of the individual case.”18 In doing so, 

the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation - the 

capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison or market approach, and the 

cost-less-depreciation approach.19 

 

All of the evidence and testimony submitted by the respective parties was considered in 

reaching a decision in this case. However, if specific evidence is not discussed in this 

section of the Opinion and Judgment, the presiding judge determined that this evidence 

was given no weight or credibility. Only evidence determined to have relevance in 

reaching a decision in this case is discussed below. 

 

Neither party raised any issue with respect to the highest and best use of the property 

by way of the testimony and evidence provided, and the Tribunal finds that there is no 

dispute that its highest and best use is continued use as residential. 

 

It is undisputed that Petitioner purchased the subject property in November 2023 for 

$220,000, and although “the purchase price paid in a transfer of real property is not the 

presumptive [TCV],”20 it is relevant in determining "usual selling price” within the 

meaning of MCL 211.27 and “must be considered by the Tribunal in the absence of an 

auction or forced sale.”21 As noted by the Michigan Supreme Court, “a property's [TCV] 

has been defined in our caselaw to mean the property's ‘fair market value,’ thereby 

referring to ‘the probable price that a willing buyer and a willing seller would arrive at 

through arm’s length negotiation.’”22 In this case, Petitioner testified that the subject 

property was not listed on the open market. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the 

property did not have sufficient market exposure or normal market conditions to make 

the purchase price the best evidence of TCV for the 2024 tax year. 

 

Respondent submitted a mass appraisal cost approach relying on the 2024 property record 

card, ECF analysis,23 and land sale analysis, contending the subject property is properly 

assessed. Testimony at hearing revealed the ECF analysis was not included with 

Respondent’s evidence, and therefore the Tribunal finds Respondent’s mass appraisal cost 

approach is not supported or credible. 

 

The Tribunal finds that the subject market was increasing at a rate of 10% from tax year 

2024 to 2025 based on the testimony at hearing and market evidence filed in this case. 

 

 

18 Antisdale at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 

19 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 

636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170. 

20 MCL 211.27(6). 

21 Samonek v Norvell Twp, 208 Mich App 80, 85; 527 NW2d 24, 27 (1994). See also Jones & Laughlin 

Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

22 Gardner v Dep't of Treasury, 498 Mich 1, 10; 869 NW2d 199, 203 (2015) (citation omitted). 

23 The ECF analysis submitted by Respondent was missing the underlying data to support the 2024 ECF 

of 1.414.

MTT Docket No. 24-003677 

Page 6 of 7 

 

Based on the testimony, evidence, and for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal reduces 

the subject property’s TCV to $280,000 with an SEV and TV of $140,000 for the 2024 tax 

year. For the 2025 tax year, the Tribunal finds a TCV of $308,000, SEV of $154,000 and TV 

of $144,340. 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the property’s SEV and TV for the tax year(s) at issue shall be as 

set forth in the Summary of Judgment section of this Final Opinion and Judgment. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax year(s) at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s TCV and TV within 20 days of entry of this Final 

Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.24 To the extent that 

the final level of assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and 

published, the assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or 

becomes known. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 

days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall 

include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty 

and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the 

amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by 

the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to 

the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A 

sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any 

time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. 

Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through 

June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 

2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the 

rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 

4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) 

after June 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after 

December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 

2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, 

through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) after June 30 2020, through December 

31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at 

the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 

4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) 

after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after 

December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 

2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, 

through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%, and (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through 

December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%. 

 

24 See MCL 205.755.

MTT Docket No. 24-003677 

Page 7 of 7 

 

This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes 

this case. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _______________________________________ 

 

Entered: June 17, 2025 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

← View full record